Remanded

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.(Hpcl) v. U.T. Administration and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC6 Sept 2023CWP/20192/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside an order cancelling the petitioner's lease deed without a hearing, granting liberty to the respondents to pass a fresh order after affording an opportunity of hearing.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 26.09.2018 set aside; liberty to respondents to pass fresh order after granting hearing opportunity.

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.(Hpcl) Vs U.T. Administration and Others — Punjab & Haryana HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

CWP-20192-2019

2023:PHHC:117643

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶5

204 CWP-20192-2019 Date of Decision : 06.09.2023

¶6

Hindustan Petroleum Coporation Ltd.

¶7

......... Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

U.T.Administration, Chandigarh and others ......... Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

¶11

Present : Mr. Raman Sharna, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr.L.S.Virk, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2.

¶13

¶14

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)

¶15

The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of order dated 26.09.2018 whereby the respondent has cancelled lease deed executed between petitioner and respondent.

¶16

The petitioner is a Government Company registered under the Companies Act, 2013. The petitioner is engaged in the business of marketing petro-products including kerosene. The petitioner by Chandigarh Administration has been allotted multiple sites for marketing of kerosene. The Chandigarh Administration has decided to stop sale of kerosene through PDS system in the U.T.Chandigarh. On account of said decision, the respondent has cancelled lease deed.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that lease deed has

¶18

ANJU GOEL 2023.09.06 17:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-20192-2019

2023:PHHC:117643

-2-

been cancelled without issuing notice and without granting opportunity of hearing. The petitioner is a Government undertaking and lease deed was executed more than 30 years back. The respondent has prohibited kerosene except white kerosene.

¶23

Learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 submits that all kinds of kerosene are prohibited in U.T.Chandigarh, however, she does not dispute the fact that the petitioner is working since 1981 and lease deed has been cancelled without granting opportunity of hearing. She further submits that the competent authority would pass an appropriate order after granting opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶24

In the wake of statement of learned counsel for the parties, the impugned order dated 26.09.2018 is hereby set aside with liberty to the respondents to pass afresh order after granting opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner is at liberty to make written representation as well as oral submissions before the competent authority.

¶25

Disposed of.

¶26

06.09.2023

¶27

anju

¶28

	( JAGMOHAN BANSAL ) JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned	Yes/No
Whether Reportable	Yes/No

¶29

ANJU GOEL 2023.09.06 17:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.(Hpcl) v. U.T. Administration and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.(Hpcl) v. U.T. Administration and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Om Parkash Vs Union of India and Ors.

Narinder Singh Vs Union of India and Ors.

Abdul Latiff Vs Union of India and Othres

Manjeet Yadav Vs Punjab National Bank and Another

Ikechukwu Orji Vs Union of India and Ors.

Indian Oil Corporation Limited Vs U.T. Administration, Chandigarh and Another